DOJ-OGR-00004146.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 285 Filed 05/20/21 Page 11 of 34 Barely twelve hours later, when AUSA gg hadn’t responded, AUSA x took it upon himself to follow up, emailing AUSA gg: “Just quickly following up on this — we're trying to get a complete handle on the landscape — thanks!” Jd. AUSA | Fesponded one hour later: “Just went through my files and found a folder w/ the notes I took and the documents they brought me.” /d. She turned everything over to AUSA J and other prosecutors in the office, including one other prosecutor on this trial team. /d. AUSA J cid not answer AUSA J original question: “[D]id [she] meet again with [Peter Skinner] or anyone else” after the February 29, 2016 meeting with Giuffre’s attorneys. /d. But AUSA J certainly did not deny a second meeting or a subsequent phone call occurred. Id. By the end of the day on December 6, 2018, AUSA gg had in his possession everything Giuffre and her attorneys provided to AUSA J as well as AUSA x extensive hand-written notes. He also had access to AUSA [ggg herself for any follow up questions. By the end of the day, AUSA J had a “complete handle on the landscape,” just as he asked for a couple hours earlier. When AUSA J appeared before Judge McMahon barely four months later, however, he told her none of this, unequivocally and falsely disavowing any role by Boies Schiller in fomenting the investigation and denying any contacts between Boies Schiller and his office before November 2018. Even though AUSA ggg had a “complete handle on the landscape,” he painted an entirely different, false picture for Judge McMahon. II. The Government’s Response to Maxwell’s Motion. Confronted with evidence of AUSA JJ misrepresentations to Judge McMahon, the government has filed a Response reluctantly admitting that the U.S. Attorney’s Office had sustained contact with Boies Schiller in 2016. Even so, the government tries its best to minimize DOJ-OGR-00004146